The Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Thailand: Audiologic performance and Quality of Life
Pornthep Kasemsiri MD1, Panida Thanawirattananit MA (Audiology)1, Kwanchanok Yimtae MD1, Sivaporn Kiatthanabumrung MD2, Permsarp Isipradit MD3, Viraporn Atchariyasathian MD4, Tulakan Mukkun MD5, Chitsuda Wacharasindhu MD6, Napas Tanamai MD7, et al.
Affiliation : 1 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand 2 Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand 3 Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 4 Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand 5 Department of Otolaryngology, Trang Hospital, Trang, Thailand 6 Department of Otolaryngology, Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand 7 Center of Excellence in Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
Background : Cochlear implantation is the one of modalities for restoring hearing function. Recently, trends in cochlear implants
are increase but few studies have reported on quality of life and hearing outcomes after cochlear implant placement in Thailand.
Objective : To assess the auditory performance and quality of life of patients after receiving cochlear implants.
Materials and Methods: An observational study was conducted in 11 cochlear implant centers in Thailand. The study was
implemented through a secure web-based platform. Retrieved data concerning cochlear implants were classified into two periods.
Prior to October 1, 2016, retrospective chart reviews were performed, whereas the prospective element of the study investigated
patients who underwent cochlear implantation after October 1, 2016. Data were collected until August 31, 2017.
Results : Two hundred and twenty-six patients were registered. Unfortunately, 10 medical chart records contained insufficient data;
thus, data from 216 patients were analyzed. Postoperative hearing outcomes, specifically aided thresholds, PB scores and SRT/
STD scores were superior to pre-implant performance and improved at each successive post-implant assessment point (p = 0.001,
p<0.001, and p<0.001, respectively). It took a median of 36 months to aurally rehabilitate patients: the criterion used was
achieving a CAP score of more than 5, indicating good communication performance. Use of sign language alone as a means of pre-
operative communication was a predictor of poor rehabilitation success (p = 0.013). The QOL of patients with cochlear implants
was assessed with questionnaires including EQ5D5L, Pedsql, and HUI3. The outcomes were not clearly significantly better than
pre-implantation; however, in the early post-operative period the trend was superior to pre-implantation performance. Compli-
cations of cochlear implantation were rare in our series.
Conclusion : Cochlear implantation in Thailand seems to be providing good audiologic parameters, communication performances
and QOL. A limitation of the study is the small amount of data due to difficulty in retrieving retrospective data. Therefore, a
standard system for managing case data should be instituted now to improve the evidence base concerning outcomes of cochlear
implant surgery.
Keywords : Cochlear implant, Web-based registry, Sensorineural hearing loss, Quality of life
